Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

Kent Harrington compares Trump's wide latitude to bring family members into his inner circles of office to "family values" that are prevalent in regimes ruled by tinpot dictators. Autocratic leaders like Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping don't surround themselves with clan members, because they are confident, experienced and knowledgeable enough to rely on people outside their families for advice. Trump's move displays his insecurity, because it finally dawns on him how unfit he is for the presidential office.
That "loyalty matters above all else" is generally expected in a relationship between superiors and subordinates, not just in "family dictatorships." It's about having trust in people around you. Trump does prize loyalty above everything, like old-fashioned despots. Since his election, he has awarded top jobs to the very small group of loyalists who stood by him during the campaign, instead of prioritising competent and respected Democrat and non-partisan professionals, even though they didn't support him in the primary.
By keeping his daughter and son-in-law or offspring in his inner circle, other members of his cabinet would have to be servile towards them. Trump is good at bending laws and will find ways to flout "nepotism laws" by not hiring family members officially. They will have no "titles" but take on "tasks" that are supposed to be dealt with by experienced and proficient people. They enjoy the privilege to be close to him and have his ear. It's amazing that Congress Republicans and Trump's voters allow this to happen. Hillary Clinton appears more virtuous in this respect, despite criticism of her and her family foundation. Kim also "ignored the pecking order of the ruling Workers’ Party of Korea to give his sister and brother high-ranking positions."
What would ultimately happen - as in North Korea or elsewhere with a similar system - is that there is likely to be "unexpected promotions and abrupt purges" under Trump. It would be entertaining to watch a reality-show out of the White House, watching "Trump’s enthusiastic firings and occasional Cinderella-like promotions of low-level employees." The author has pointed out amazing similarities between the Kim dynastic dictatorship and Trump's clan politics - "sputtering or failed policies are likely to have personnel consequences, though only those outside the family will face them." This is how "a Trump White House would function. “My loyalty is to the family,” according to someone who knows him. This is not right, because most Americans don't want their country be turned into a banana republic.

This may all be true and I suspect most voters knew or suspected this already. It goes to show what lengths the US voters were prepared to go to to stick a finger in the eye of the previous ruling elite.

Trump is above all an Oligarch. Therein lies his identification with Putin, and how he will govern. Accumulation and protection of wealth will play as big a role in his decision making as the actual pros and cons.

Like Curtis, I hope congress can find the backbone to curb his worst instincts, but have real reservations given their unwillingness to govern responsibly.

The family thing is all about Trump's basic underlying insecurity, and that insecurity in turn feeds his fundamental and highly dangerous instability. The big question we're left with is whether the Republican Senate and House can muster up the will to moderate his extremes. Given the congressional track record over the last few decades, I don't see much cause for hope in that.

The immediate question for Trump as President would be, how to lead and coordinate the tides of powerful interests concurring around the white house, and around the world stage, obviously depending on an equally powerful and coordinated supporting Presidential team. To state the obvious. But, counter-intuitively, it seems that Trump's historic mission falls more on the side of destruction. There is a rationale on that: raw market forces will certainly benefit from weakened institutions. And a top-class Presidential team may not be required for that.

Lock her up…
Lock her up...
Shouted the multitude, outraged by the use of private e-mails and some paid lectures to wall street, while sheering what is going to be the largest assault to our institutions…